Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
Action Research: Measuring Progress and Interaction When Using Reusable Learning
Objects Designed for 3rd, 4th and 5th Grade Students.
Sharon R. Synan
University of West Georgia
1
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
2
Introduction
There are many challenges yet to be conquered in the development and delivery of
online learning especially in the 3rd through 5th grade levels where students are still
developing foundational learning skills and learning to be learners. In online
learning the teacher is one of the primary factors for students to effectively learn.
As reported in the U.S. Department of Education’s research including the 2003
report Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effects of Teachers Attributes shows that
“high quality teachers are the most important factor in a child’s education” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2003). Online teachers need to be more focused on
students and their needs because they lack the luxury of physically interacting with
students one on one. (Palloff and Pratt, 2003). Nothing takes the place of a quality,
effective teacher. This pedagogy as a guide and facilitator requires more than just a
great teacher. The teacher must have well-researched and effective content that has
been designed and created using a model of instructional design that engages the
learner, capitalizes on the individual learner’s style of learning, and provides some
control to the learner in regards to the learning itself, freeing the teacher to spend
less time preparing to teach and more time facilitating learning based on the needs
of individual learners.
Background
Online learning and blended learning works well with the idea of the teacher
being a guide and facilitator of learning. Reigeluth (1999) is credited with writing,
“…the teacher has to be more of a "guide on the side" rather than a "sage on the
stage” (Reigeluth, 1999). Now, rather than having the teacher as the center or head
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
3
of the class, the student is the focus with many spokes coming in to enhance the
learning process. Content is another spoke but what I want to focus on is the design
of that content and its delivery as a reusable learning object or (RLO). For my action
research project I am focusing on 3rd, 4th and 5th grade learners and how they
interact with a systematically designed reusable-learning object. The research in
instructional design for online learners in elementary grades is sparse to say the
least. Designing effective online instruction that can engage learners should be
based on proven learning theories (Ally, 2004). Beaumont (2003) argues that
although technology is typically blamed for the lack of effective online learning thus
far “poor instructional design” and “content production” represent two foremost
problems for e-learning (p. 1). Polsani (2003) defines a learning object as “an
independent and self-standing unit of learning content that is predisposed to reuse
in multiple instructional contexts.” The structure and composition of a learning
object varies based on the model of design and the content packaging. Most do not
detail the level of aggregation or granularity of a learning object (Balatsoukas,
P.,Morris, A., & O’Brien, A., 2008).
Rationale and Professional Reflection
Reusable learning objects (RLO) for elementary students have potential as an
integrated strategy for delivering learning opportunities based on individual learner
needs. Using RLOs in the classroom can provide elementary students with online
learning opportunities (Reece, 2009). When an object is reusable it can be shared
with others, across subjects, in multiple classes, therefore providing content
developed at a savings (Reece, 2009). Funding, therefore, is not the major hindrance
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
4
to integrating reusable learning objects.
A challenge to integration of digital learning resources is the lack of fit with
the curriculum (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008; Peck, Cuban, Kirkpatrick, 2002).
Development of quality open educational resources that will give the end user rights
to reuse the object and modify the learning object to fit their context is of great
significance for elementary education. However, most research regarding
reusability has been focused on the technical compatibility in multiple platforms
and little research on the degree to which the object is used efficiently and
effectively in different educational contexts over a given time (Sicilia, 2004).
The purpose of the this literature review is to provide knowledge of learning object
content models, review of resources providing learning objects for education, and
the integration of learning objects in elementary education.
I plan to use the principles of learning objects to design elementary
appropriate reusable learning objects. Reusable learning objects (RLO’s) are standalone digital objects that have certain characteristics that make them reusable.
These characteristics include mobility, metadata and they are granular enough to
teach a specific concept or standard while broad enough to be used in multiple
context of learning and subjects. In these elementary grades students need more
guidance to self-evaluate and when frustrated with the learning process. The
critical thinking skills needed to be a self-directed, independent learner have not
fully developed during these young years of age and grade. With this in mind I am
theorizing that reusable-learning objects could be more cost effective, efficient, and
beneficial when used by a quality teacher in a blended setting as compared to a fully
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
5
online course. Developing these objects must be carefully studied to ensure they
meet reusability guidelines, are effective, and are user friendly for students to use
independently or in small groups, and for teachers to easily incorporate into their
lessons and daily planning.
Although I can use guidelines and principles of design in the development of
these learning objects, research with elementary age subjects using learning objects
is scarce. Most of the definitions are shaped around general principles that govern
the learning object concept, such as reusability, learning intent, and contextindependence (Polsani, 2003). In the context of my work I am responsible for
creating the learning modules for digital citizenship as guided by the NETS.S. The
Digital Learning Act Senate Bill 289 asks K-12 educators to maximize learning
opportunities that include online learning. Currently, the only approved provider of
online content for schools to utilize is Georgia Virtual School. However, Georgia
Virtual School does not have K-5 content ready to provide. It is argued that many elearning materials or e-courses are not developed using proven educational
principles, and thus, they do not take into consideration the effective learning
methods utilized by many educators” (Woodill 2004). It will be important to
scaffold learning and integration of the learning objects modeling pedagogical
strategies for optimal integration. In blended environments the way the teacher
scaffolds and integrates the learning objects was found to have a significant
influence on the way students engage with the object. (Atkins & Jones, 2004).
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
6
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to measure the progress and interaction of
students when using reusable learning objects that have been designed with Georgia
Virtual School’s development model for 3rd -5th grade students. With the passing of
Senate Bill 289 schools are to maximize the opportunities for students to participate
in online learning and virtual learning. Schools are to use Georgia Virtual School
(GaVS) content, which has been approved, or content listed in the State Online
Clearinghouse. Although GaVS is an approved content provider with many course
options in 6-12th grade, no content exists for 3rd, 4th and 5th grades. Preliminary
theories suggest a blended learning approach, combining the strategies of face to
face teaching with the benefits and flexibility of online learning may hold the most
positive potential. With this theory in mind the idea of developing reusable learning
objects (RLO) seems to offer the greatest benefit. Reusable learning objects (RLO’s)
are learning objects that can be combined to create a course or used independently
in multiple courses, across content subjects. The ability for a teacher to use the
object in more than one subject or setting is a key qualification for the object to be
considered reusable. Research on the design process for secondary education and
higher education is fairly robust, but research is scarce related specifically to design
and development of learning objects specifically for 3rd, 4th and 5th grades students.
This study will take the limited research available and build upon that knowledge
creating a generalizable study to guide further elementary school design models.
Research Questions:
1. How do students interact with a 3-5 grade appropriate reusable-learning object
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
7
when developed with GaVS 3-5 development model and delivered in a
blended environment?
2. What effect does using a 3-5 grade appropriate reusable-learning object have on
student progress as measured using a pre and post assessment?
Literature Review
Reusable learning objects (RLO) for elementary students have potential as an
integrated strategy for delivering learning opportunities based on individual learner
needs. Using RLOs in the classroom can provide elementary students with online
learning opportunities (Reece, 2009). When an object is reusable it can be shared
with others, across subjects, in multiple classes, therefore providing content
developed at a savings (Reece, 2009). Funding, therefore, is not the major hindrance
to integrating reusable learning objects.
A challenge to integration of digital learning resources is the lack of fit with
the curriculum (Bennett & Lockyer, 2008; Peck, Cuban, Kirkpatrick,
2002). Development of quality open educational resources that will give the end
user rights to reuse the object and modify the learning object to fit their context is of
great significance for elementary education. Flexibility of use and reuse of the
learning object will allow elementary educators to tailor learning and to
differentiate in multiple different ways. This flexibility might include thematic
lessons, accelerated learning for a student who has already mastered the current
class content or even modifications to increase engagement such as adding photos
or images of the class. However, most research regarding reusability has been
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
8
focused on the technical compatibility in multiple platforms and little research on
the degree to which the object is used efficiently and effectively in different
educational contexts over a given time (Sicilia, 2004).
The purpose of the this literature review is to provide knowledge of learning
object content models, review of resources providing learning objects for education,
and the integration of learning objects in elementary education. Polsani (2003)
defines a learning object as “an independent and self-standing unit of learning
content that is predisposed to reuse in multiple instructional contexts.” The
structure and composition of a learning object varies based on the model of design
and the content packaging. Most do not detail the level of aggregation or granularity
of a learning object (Balatsoukas, P.,Morris, A., & O’Brien, A., 2008). SCORM, IMS
Content Packaging, and course authoring tools are some of the guidelines or
standards developers use to connect and choose the model of design as well as
learning theories that guide design such as the ADDIE model of instructional design.
The ADDIE model has five components: 1. analysis, 2. design, 3. development, 4.
implementation, 5. evaluation (Shor, 2012). A more recent model of instructional
design that truly capitalizes on Web 2.0 tools is the Emerging Web-based Design
Learning Model. This model includes the use of discussion groups, quizzes with
immediate feedback, interactivity, etc. (Pradeep Gnanam, S. S., Srinath, M. V., &
Sivhakumaar, V. P. 2011).
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
9
Review of Popular Content Models
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) has developed an
Agile framework for the development of learning objects. This framework guides
the developer through a structured yet agile way through the processes of
designing, developing and the use and finally evaluation of learning objects. Design
and development is an iterative process that includes a collaborative group of
stakeholders in the process (RLO-CETL, 2012). The stakeholders could include,
vendors, industry consultants, subject matter experts (SME), curriculum leaders,
school representatives, teachers and students.
The specifications for learning objects are guided by the idea of
reusability. Learning objectives are kept simple, tightly focused, and not too subject
or discipline specific. The presentation portion is the didactic component with
limitations of five sections and the five sections containing three hundred or less
words per section (RLO-CETL, 2012). The CETL model begins by identifying the
learner need. It further adds a design-based component bringing developer and
practitioner together to collaborate through an iterative process as recommended
by Amiel and Reeves (2008).
The creation of digital reusable learning objects has long been approached
with its orientation towards large integrated packages. Breaking down the content
packages into smaller chunks of assets makes the objects reusable in many different
contexts and for a variety of purposes (Douglas, 2001).
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
10
CISCO-RLO is Cisco System Reusable Learning Object model the only content
model to specify guidelines for a learning object (Balatsoukas, P.,Morris, A., &
O’Brien, A., 2008). CISCO’s goal is to create learning objects that are smaller in size
and can be aggregated in order to meet specific training needs (Cisco Systems,
2004). In this model a learning object consists of a single learning objective, an
overview, a summary, and topics, practice, assessment and the metadata1
(Balatsoukas, P.,Morris, A., & O’Brien, A., 2008).
The CISCO RLO model considers the applied learning theories of cognition
and multimedia of Dr. Ruth Colvin Clark, and integrates with Dr. Bloom’s taxonomy
of learning along with various adult-learning theories. Information is separated into
five types: concept, fact, procedure, process and principle (elatewiki, 2009).
LODAS, the learning object design and sequencing instructional design
theory addresses the issue of granularity (scope and design) and sequencing
(combination) in learning objects. LODAS provides guidance for designing different
type of learning objects and provides the taxonomy (Reece, 2009). This method
links a specific problem with working examples and instruction.
The sharable content object reference model (SCORM) was developed by the
U.S. Department of Defense and is one of the most widely accepted models. SCORM
is made up of a prescribed set of fields or standards that define various aspects of
metadata n. a set of data that describes and gives information about other data
OED Online (2012)"meta-, prefix". Oxford University Press. 23 July 2012
http://www.oed.com.proxygsuwgc1.galileo.usg.edu/view/Entry/117150?redirecte
dFrom=metadata
1
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
11
the domain. SCORM can then be integrated as part of Learning Management System
(LMS). SCORM separates the sequence from the content itself providing the ability
for a higher granularity level and giving the object a higher level of reusability
(Reece, 2009).
Understanding the content models for developing and designing reusable
learning objects is important to my action research because it will guide my
development of the reusable learning objects to use in the research.
Review of Existing Reusable Online Resources
With the development of more and more reusable learning objects online
resource sites have been made available to share these objects. Four of these
important resources will be examined in this literature review. MERLOT, WiscOnline, North Carolina Learning Object Repository (NCLOR) and The Gateway to
Educational Materials (GEM).
MERLOT is an acronym for Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning
and On-Line Teaching. This website is geared toward higher education and contains
high quality interactive learning objects. This free site contains thousands of
learning objects that have been peer-reviewed. MERLOT’s site can be searched by
subject areas including; Math, Science and Technology, Social Sciences, Arts,
Business, Education and Humanities. The important characteristics that make these
objects significant include: reusability, high quality, evaluated, and the availability
metadata (MERLOT, 2012).
Wisc-Online is a digital library including web-based learning objects that have
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
12
been developed primarily by the faculty from the Wisconsin Technical College
System. This system contains 2,555 objects that can be accessed by WTCS faculty at
no cost and with copyright clearance for use in any WTCS classroom or online
application. The overall purpose of the Wisconsin Online Resource Center is to
increase access to high quality educational interactive learning objects as faculty
create and design full courses. The objects are searchable by subject. Important
characteristics found in this resource include: objects can be taken independently, a
single learning object may be used in multiple contexts for multiple purposes, and
metadata exists (Wisc-Online, 2012).
The North Carolina Community College System provides the North Carolina
Learning Object Repository (NCLOR). Its purpose is to provide a central location to
manage, collect, contribute, and share digital learning resources in all learning
environments. The NCLOR is open to all K-20 teachers in the state and is somewhat
unique in that it provides both vendor and peer resources for its users. The
characteristics of these resources that make them reusable include: shareable,
safeguard of copyright, and standardized metadata (Wikipedia, 2012).
The fourth resource is The Gateway to Educational Materials
(GEM). Locating resources to use in learning environments can be quite time
consuming. The Gateway to Educational Materials provides a location for educators
to quickly and easily access thousands of learning objects. This resource is
sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. The characteristics of these
learning objects that make them reusable include: metadata, concrete syntax, search
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
13
ability (The Gateway, 2012).
Understanding the resource locations of vetted reusable learning objects is
important to my action research because I will need to house the resources in a
location that is searchable, accessible, compliant, and with metadata for quick and
easy retrieval by teachers and educators. Although some of the repositories listed
above do not accept reusable learning objects from educators outside of their state
or system, understanding how the repositories function is important to my research
and demonstrates the strong rationale for being SCORM compliant since each can
receive SCORM compliant objects. In Georgia the Statewide Longitudinal Data
System’s TRL (Teacher Resource Link) will serve as my hosting solution. This
learning object repository links standards, assessments and grade level information
to direct teachers to appropriate resources based on student need.
Integrating Reusable Learning Objects
The basic idea behind a reusable learning object is to create a single objective
resource that could be used in multiple contexts. This idea moves away from the
predominant idea of creating whole course packages offering more flexibility and
enabling the user to customize the learning for students based on assessed need
(Wiley, 2000).
In face-to-face and blended environments the way the teacher scaffolds and
integrates the learning objects was found to have a significant influence on the way
students engage with the object. Furthermore, research shows learning objects
support student learning best when contextually integrated with the class’ program
of activities and when the teacher scaffolds students’ interaction with the content
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
14
(Atkins & Jones, 2004). The above statement is part of what makes understanding
the best model of design complicated and not merely a step-by-step process. The
learning object must maintain the characteristics that determine reusability.
Characteristics like a set metadata, mobility, and compatibility, independent and
able to stand-alone (Reece, 2009). Elementary schools vary in the approach to
learning from district to district and often from school to school. Some elementary
schools departmentalize teaching each subject independently while other
elementary schools may use a thematic, cross-content approach. One elementary
school may have one to one computing options while other elementary schools may
have limited access and prefer to do group work on Smart Tables™ or interactive
whiteboard. The variations are seemingly endless but must be considered in this
process and when considering an instructional model of design.
Merely employing technology for instructional purposes does not seem to be
enough (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996). “Worley, citing Ehrmann, argued that
instructional methods should focus on the integration of effective learning strategies
rather than the impact of technology in isolation (Worley, 2000) with the goal of
determining the effectiveness of e-learning (Wiley, 2002).” However, solid, research
based instructional design can be achieved. By ensuring the reusable-learning
object is built upon solid research it will put the best tools in the hands of the
craftsmen, the teachers, to utilize.
Summary
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
15
Reusable learning objects have potential to provide greater opportunities for
diverse and individualized learning in grades K-12. The literature and research for
developing, storing, accessing, and using reusable learning objects in face to face
environments, blended environments and online environments is scarce. However,
basic design principles for learning objects can be applied and researched effectively
if developed with a design-based approach that is agile using iterative plans and
being flexible in the design within this structured approach.
Some basic characteristics must be included in the design and planning
phases that will specifically allow the learning object to be reusable. Metadata is
one of the keys to this reusability and mobility. Once the objects are designed and
tested it is important to have a space to store and catalog these objects to be
harvested easily and accessible to others. MERLOT, GEM, Wisc-Online and NCLOR
are good examples of systems to consider when looking for a solution to store these
objects.
Regardless of the quality and reusability of the object, the greatest factor in
how effective the reusable object will be in the classroom environment of any type
will depend on the teacher. Research shows that high quality reusable learning
objects used in a way that is inappropriate or not a best practice will degrade the
value of the object. Likewise, a mediocre object can increase in value when used in
an optimal practice.
In a recent Delphi study on priorities in K-12 distance learning, highest
priority was noted in regards to teachers attitude toward professional development
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
16
and need for training on effective pedagogical strategies and skills to deliver lessons
using distance learning environments and learning objects (Rice, 2009). Teachers
and educators need professional development and training to learn these best
practices and to increase the effectiveness and value of reusable learning objects
they know they can rely on when working with students.
Methodology
Setting and Participants
The setting for this action research will be an elementary school in Northeast
Georgia. Maysville Elementary School (MES) is located at 9270 Highway 82 Spur.
Maysville, Ga. 30558-2101. MES serves students in grades PK through 5th grade.
Figure 1 (Moyoto, 2012)
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
17
Figure 1 displays a graph demonstrating the break down of students by race and by
gender. MES currently has an enrollment of three hundred seventy nine students
with thirty-eight certified teachers and twenty-seven non-certified staff (MES,
20120). 13 % of the student population is designated as living in poverty. MES is a
school wide Title I school of excellence offering breakfast and lunch, a bilingual
program and also providing before and afterschool programs. 63% of the adult
population in Maysville graduated from high school with 11% going on to receive a
bachelors degree or higher (Movoto, 2012).
The principal of MES is John Canupp. 2012-2013 will be Mr. Canupp’s first
year as principal of MES. Mr. Canupp and I have a previously established working
relationship. Mr. Canupp was an Assistant Principal at West Jackson Middle School
while I was a teacher there in the past. April Howard, the Director of Elementary
School Teaching and Learning will also be involved in this research project as the
facilitator between the central office and myself. Dr. Green is the Superintendent of
Jackson County Schools. He has graciously given approval and supports research
efforts that will increase the knowledge base. A letter of agreement from Jackson
County Schools is in the IRB submission packet. One heterogenic class from 3rd
grade, 4th grade and 5th grade will be selected to participate in the pilot study. The
selection of the class will be based on teacher volunteers and experience. The
intention is to select a class that will serve as a generalizable sample, although
sample size will be small, and teacher who is comfortable with an external study
being conducted.
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
18
Intervention Plan
The action research includes phases beginning with a preparation and
preplanning phase and then four phases to conduct the actual research ending in a
final wrap up phase to write up the data and share the information with
stakeholders at Maysville Elementary School, Jackson County Admin, Ga. Virtual
School Developers and Strategic Planners. An additional presentation to showcase
the action research will be provided for UWG classmates and instructors. The
following is a detailed list of the step-by-step procedures to be taken during each
phase of the project.
Pre-planning Phase: The pre-planning phase begins now and will continue up
until transitioning into Phase I. During the pre-planning phase I have several
milestones to achieve in order to prepare ahead of time and to ensure the research
is conducted in a professional and collaborative way. I recognize and acknowledge
Jackson County School’s commitment to excellence in all things especially as it
relates to students and the teachers during instructional time. A research and
design meeting is planned at Maysville Elementary before the research will take
place. The purpose of this meeting includes: Introducing me to the leadership team
by Dr. Howard, this will establish my role as a researcher and will demonstrate
support of this project from the central office. Mr. Canupp will be in attendance at
this meeting and this will establish support from the school level and will help to
gain the support of the leadership team at the school level. Demonstrated support
and involvement by a Superintendent representative and Principal has been
researched indicating a substantial influence on teacher level leadership and on the
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
19
buy in of research, and programs by teachers statistically stronger than research
and programs that do not make apparent the support of Superintendent and
Principal level leadership (Brandon, 2008).
The second milestone or goal of this meeting is to explain the research
design, the background and rationale for the research and to give the leadership
team a chance to look at the research design, ask questions, make recommendations
and possibly to make changes in the design based on the teacher expertise. This
meeting will also allow me to collect some paper work such as the agreement letter
on the school letterhead and to give the volunteer teachers parent letters, parent
consent and to discuss the need for child consent and the best way to communicate
with the students and to decide on an alternative for students who may choose to
opt out of the study. I will use this time period to create the reusable-learning object
and to create the pre and post assessment.
Pre-planning Checklist
☐Prepare leadership presentation of research design, volunteer
requirements, consent forms, coding and demographic information
pre and post assessment, and reusable learning object.
☐Establish buy in through demonstrated support from central office and
Principal.
☐Explain the research design and give the background and rationale for the
research. Demo the reusable learning object to the group and show
the observation form, demo the pre and post assessment.
☐ Conduct a question and answer session and receive research design
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
20
suggestions.
☐Meet or establish volunteer teachers and provide parent letters, parent
consent and discuss child assent.
☐Plan for a location and activity for children who may opt out of the study.
Phase I (August 27, 2013 – September 14, 2013): This is the phase that will
likely be the most hectic and I may have to be willing to be a little bit flexible. Getting
permission forms and working in an elementary school setting always requires
flexibility, it is just the nature of the environment. I will begin this phase by
collecting the parent permission forms and will get the children’s assent.
The University of West Georgia IRB Handbook provides some guidelines on
obtaining child assent. “When the participants in non‐exempt research are between
the ages of 5‐18, the IRB requires a participant assent process after parental
permission has been granted (UWG IRB, 2012, pg. 26).” Children between the ages
of 5-12 do not have to sign a consent form but assent must be given verbally by the
child in order for the child to participate. The handbook also clearly informs the
researcher that a lack of a negative assent does not indicate assent. A script
explaining who I am, what I am doing and the purpose of the research in easy to
understand terms for 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students will be read. I will tell the
students that their parents have already given permission and have been made
aware of the study; this will have been accomplished in the pre-planning phase.
Because I will need positive assent, the students will need to tell me or another adult
that they want to participate. This assent will be collected using a coding system so
that I do not have to collect the names of the students. The coding will be a simple
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
21
number and alpha system to look like this a number to represent the grade, an alpha
to represent the gender, and a student number assigned by the teacher. An example
of the code might be 4F2, representing 4th grade student, female, student #2. One
way to maintain confidentiality of student names is to use an Avery™ label paper.
The teacher will be asked to write the student name on the label paper, then assign a
student code number. Once the child has given assent to participate in the study the
label with the student name will be peeled off and discarded leaving only the code in
place.
The next step in this first phase is to administer a pre-assessment. This preassessment will be administered via Internet in a computer lab. Each student will
have access to his/her own computer or laptop. I will gather assent and administer
the pre-assessment for 3rd, 4th and 5th grade students. If a student can not read the
assessment instructions independently a teacher will read the instructions allowed
for the student. If possible I will utilize a read allowed tool the student can access on
his or her own. This will end Phase I for students and I will analyze the student
assessment.
Checklist for Phase I
☐Collect parent permission forms
☐Write Script for child assent
☐Collect verbal assent on the coded label paper and remove student names.
☐Administer the pre-assessment
☐Analyze the pre-assessment and enter into SPSS along with demographic
information provided by the teacher.
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
22
Phase II: (August 27, 2012 – September 17, 2012) – Phase II is when students
will have the opportunity to engage in learning with the reusable-learning object.
In this phase I will spend approximately one class period or session with a grade
level group sample. Because I want to have two cycles to observe the interaction of
the reusable learning object I will want only half of each group this first cycle. The
students will not receive instruction regarding the use of the reusable-learning
object. Instructions to log in to the school computer and to access the object will be
given before the lesson. I am extremely aware and feel strongly it is important to
comment on the fact that this isolated approach to using the learning object would
not be the way to appropriately use it in a blended learning model. Students in a
blended learning environment should understand the purpose of the learning object
ahead of time and the facilitator would engage in a hook before the class session
begins. To ensure that I am capturing the student interaction with the reusable
learning object and measurement of the progress based on the use of the learning
object I will not be modeling these strategies I know to be important in this
environment. “In-class activities led by the instructor and designed to create a
cohesive, interactive community are an essential component of blended learning
(Garrison & Vaughan, 2007).” This statement goes back to the introduction and
background writing that emphasizes the importance of professional development
and guidance for the teacher and the crucial role the teacher plays as facilitator in a
blended learning environment. I think it is always important to keep that in mind
and for administrators and teachers to be reminded of that importance. However,
again the purpose of this research is to focus on the observable interactions with the
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
23
object by the students and measurement of progress when assessed. Because of the
focus of this research I will need to be careful not to push or engage too deeply with
students as a facilitator of learning or using “promising practices”. My fear is that
the strategies and “promising practices” might skew the research and validity of the
findings.
During this phase I will use an observation tool to capture specific
interactions and will take some anecdotal notes generalized by the group. I will also
note the starting time of engagement with the learning object and ending time. This
learning object will be used for 3rd, 4th and 5th grade group sample 1. The goal is to
make the reusable-learning object adaptable enough to be used across these grade
bands.
Checklist for Phase II
☐Ask the teacher to divide the class into two groups. (It is okay for both
groups to be in the computer lab at one time but only group 1 will use
the RLO. The other group can work on Study Island or another
planned activity with their teacher.
☐Make sure the students will have access to Internet or load the reusable
learning object on a Jackson Co. Internal Server.
☐Secure a computer lab so that every child will have access to a computer or
laptop.
☐Instruct students on logging in to the system and computers.
☐Mark the time when students begin the lesson
☐Observe interactions using the observation tool.
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
24
☐Analyze the data and write it up. Try to put some coded information in
SPSS.
☐Make adjustments and changes to the RLO
☐Mark the time of first student completion, average completion and last
completion.
Phase III: (September 17, 2012 – October 5, 2012) – Phase III will be conducted
much in the same way as Phase II. The goal in Phase III is to observe the student
interaction and measure progress using the reusable learning object after the cycle
1 pilot and changes have been made to the object. The second student group will
come to the computer lab. It is okay for the entire class to come to the lab but only
the second group will interact with the learning object. Again, only instruction on
how to log in and access the learning object will be given. No instruction will be
given as to the use or purpose of the lesson. The time students begin will be noted. I
will use the same observation tool to observe specific student interactions and will
make some anecdotal notes. The time the first student completes the learning
activity will be noted as well as the average time for students to complete and the
time for the last student to complete the use of the reusable learning object.
☐Ask the teacher to divide the class into two groups. (It is okay for both
groups to be in the computer lab at one time but only group 2 will use
the RLO. The other group can work on Study Island or another
planned activity with their teacher.
☐Make sure the students will have access to Internet or load the reusable
learning object on a Jackson Co. Internal Server.
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
25
☐Secure a computer lab so that every child will have access to a computer or
laptop.
☐Instruct students on logging in to the system and computers.
☐Mark the time when students begin the lesson
☐Observe interactions using the observation tool.
☐Analyze the data and write it up and put some coded information in SPSS.
☐Mark the time of first student completion, average completion and last
completion.
☐Conduct analysis on qualitative data that has been gathered through
observation form and through anecdotal notes.
Phase IV: (October 1, 2012 – October 12, 2012) – This fourth phase will be
designated to gather two forms of data. I will administer the post-assessment for
the student groups to measure learning progress. I will also conduct interviews
with a random sample of students from the pilot groups. The interviews will be
very brief, one-on-one interviews using a semi-structured protocol. I will show
some screen shots of the reusable-learning object to get feedback as to visual and
spatial esthetics of the objects. I will also ask students to show me some of the
features they like when engaged with some of the learning tools Jackson County
commonly uses. These tools include Study Island™, CoolMath™, and Poptropica.™
My purpose is to gather information that will give me some qualitative data to base
the development guidelines on in regards to colors and images. My dissertation
later will be able to use some of this data as I study further into the motivation and
learning theories in regards to development, pulling reusable learning objects
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
26
together to create mini-courses and instructional attention cues.
Phase IV: Checklist
☐Make sure ahead of time that students have access to a computer lab to take
the post assessment on the Internet or by loading the post assessment
into the Jackson County Schools Internal System.
☐Administer the post-assessment.
☐Prepare and bring a prize box for students to choose a prize from. Prizes
will be items like pencils, erasers, and stickers.
☐Conduct brief interviews with a random sampling of students from the
groups.
☐Enter the data from the post assessment into SPSS and analyze the data.
Final Wrap Up: (October 6, 2012 – November 1, 2012) – During the final wrap up I
will combine all the data parts, analyze and synthesize the data searching for insight
and further findings. The data will be added into the final paper for the action
research and I will work on the stakeholder presentation and the final University of
West Georgia Presentation. I will prepare to present this presentation to Maysville
Elementary School leadership and teachers, also inviting participating parents at a
convenient time for them in November.
☐Final Wrap Up Checklist
☐Synthesize and Analyze Data
☐Write up final Action Research Paper
☐Create presentation for University of West Georgia
☐Create presentation of findings and action research for Stakeholders
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
27
including Ga. Virtual School and Maysville Elementary School.
☐Send thank you note to Jackson County for allowing me to conduct research
along with a copy of the final action research paper.
Data Collection and Validity
Careful data collection and validity of the data are critical to making the time
and effort that goes into a research study of any type worth the investment. I have
attempted to triangulate my data to ensure the reliability and validity of the results I
derive. This study is a mixed method research study using both quantitative and
qualitative data. In this study I am gathering artifacts that are student generated
when I collect the pre and post assessment data. I am gathering observational data
by using the observation tool. Finally, I am gathering inquiry data by conducting
one-on-one interviews with students. Additionally, “although photos do not provide
the kind of detailed information that a video can provide, they do offer a point-intime reference, and they can be useful when included in a publication or
presentation of an action research study” (Burns, 2010).
The observation tool is a tool that is valid with a high reliability copied
from another research study on learning object interactivity. The citation for this
resource is McGee, P. (2003a). Observing interactivity in learning objects. Paper
presented at the ED-MEDIA conference, Ed-Media 2003, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved July
13, 2012 from faculty.coehd.utsa.edu/pmcgee/LearningObjects/LOInteractivity.doc.
I will be creating a pre and post assessment based off of models of assessments for
NETS.S. To ensure reliability a semi-structured interview protocol will be utilized.
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
28
Training and information will be transparent and openly shared with teachers to be
sure barriers to the process are eliminated as much as possible.
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
29
References
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T.
Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (chap.
1). Retrieved
July 23, 2012, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch1.html
Amiel T. & Reeves T.C. (2008) Design-based research and educational technology:
rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology &
Society 11, 29–40.
Atkins, S., & Jones, D. (2004). Considerations for learning design. The Learning
Federation, Retrieved from https://docs.google.com
Balatsoukas, P., Morris, A., & O’Brien, A. (2008). Learning Objects Update: Review
and Critical Approach to Content Aggregation. Educational Technology &
Society, 11 (2), 119-130.
Beaumont, J. (2003). Unlocking the potential of e-learning. Retrieved July 23, 2012,
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
30
from http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/analysis/1842521/unlockingpotential-learning
Bennett, S., Lockyer, L. (2008). A study of teachers' integration of interactive
whiteboards into four Australian primary school classrooms. Learning, Media
& Technology, 33(4), 289-300.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. New York: Routledge
Chickering, A., & Ehrmann, S. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: technology
as lever. AAHE Bulletin, Retrieved from
http://www.aahebulletin.com/public/archive/sevenprinciples.asp?pf=1
Cisco Systems. (2004). Reusable learning object authoring guidelines: How to build
modules, lessons, and topics. San Jose, CA.
Douglas, I. (2001): Instructional Design based on reusable learning objects: applying
lessons of object-oriented software engineering to learning system design.
Proceedings of the 31st. Frontier of Education Conference, 2001. Vol.3, pp.
F4E-1-5.
Downes S. (2003) Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic context:
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
31
a new economy of education. United States Distance Learning Association
Journal 17, 3–22
Elatewiki. (2009). Cisco systems rlo model. Retrieved from
http://elatewiki.org/index.php/Cisco_Systems_RLO_Model
Maysville Elementary School. (2012). Maysville Elementary Website. Retrieved July
25, 2012, from http://www.jackson.k12.ga.us/me/
MERLOT. (2012). Multimedia educational resource for learning and on-line teaching
Retrieved June 6, 2012, from http://www.merlot.org/
Movoto. (2012) Movoto Real Estate. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from
http://www.movoto.com/publicschools/ga/maysville/primary/130294001
253-maysville-elementary-school/9270-highway-82-spur.htm
North Carolina Learning Object Repository. (2012, January 9). In Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:42, July 10, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Carolina_Learning_Object_
Repository&oldid=470500476
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The Virtual Student: A Profile and Guide to Working with
Online Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peck, C., Cuban, L., & Kirkpatrick, H. (2002). High-tech's high hopes meet student
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
32
realities. The Education Digest, 67(8), 47-54. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218183232?accountid=15017
Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital
Information, 3(4).
Pradeep Gnanam, S. S., Srinath, M. V., & Sivhakumaar, V. P. (2011). Emerging Web
Instructional Design Model for Developing Web Based Learning Resources.
European Journal Of Scientific Research, 56(4), 548-555.
Reece, A. A. (2009). A reusable learning object design model for elementary
mathematics. Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305160521?accountid=15017
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional design theory and how is it changing?
Rice, K. (2009). Priorities in K-12 Distance Education: A Delphi Study Examining
Multiple Perspectives on Policy, Practice, and Research. Educational
Technology & Society, 12(3), 163-177.
RLO-CETL. (2012) Reusable Learning Objects, Retrieved June 6, 2012 from
http://www.rlo-cetl.ac.uk/whatwedo/rlos/completedrlos.php
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
33
SCORM. (2012). ADL Sharable Content Object Reference Model, Retrieved
June 5, 2012, from http://scorm.com/scorm-explained/
Sicilia, M. A. (2004). Reusability and reuse of learning objects, myths, realities and
possibilities. In Pro-ceedings of the first pluri-disciplinary symposium on
design, evaluation and description of reusable learning contents.
Shor, R. M. (2012). ADDIE+: Adopting proven practices from the IT industry. T + D,
66(5), 56-61. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017541819?accountid=15017
The gateway. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.thegateway.org/
U.S. Department of Education. (2003) Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effects of
Teacher Attributes.
Wagner, E.D. (2002). The new frontier of learning object design. The eLearning
Developers’ Journal, 1-8.
Wiley D.A. (2002a) Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: a
definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In The Instructional Use of Learning
Objects (ed. D.A.
Wiley), pp. 571–577. Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
Running Head: MEASURING PROGRESS AND INTERACTION
Bloomington, IN.
Wiley D.A. (2002b) The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Available at:
http://www.reusability.org/read/ (last accessed June 5, 2012).
Worley R.B. (2000) The medium is not the message. Business Communication
Quarterly 63, 93–100.
34